Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
Jitendra Dudhnath Pasvan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original accused under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case no. 50 of 2013, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’, for short) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (‘G.P. Act’, in short). At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 135 of G.P. Act and was sentenced as under:
| Sections | Punishment | Fine | In default |
| Section 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.25,000/- | RI for six months |
| Section 135 of G.P. Act | RI for one month | - | - |
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file this appeal are as under:
According to the case of the prosecution, on 10.05.2012, deceased Rajkumar Paswan was killed by the present appellant accused Jitendra Paswan by stabbing him multiple times with the arm knife. The motive
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The defendant's conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer, raising reasonable doubt.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The conviction under Section 323 IPC was overturned due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
